Subject: RE: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] Announcement of Joint GEOPRIV/ECRIT Int erim Meeting

From: "James Winterbottom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:11:06 +1000

But Henning, not all applications do need to understand it, and it can be
included easily in XML.
This is simply not the case with DHCP.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, 21 April 2005 9:17 AM
To: Winterbottom, James [WOLL:5500:EXCH]
Cc: Brian Rosen; [email-masked]; 'GEOPRIV WG'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] Announcement of Joint GEOPRIV/ECRIT
Interim Meeting

James Winterbottom wrote:
> I think that there is one other argument that also lends itself to the
> returning of the PIDF-LO rather than a layer 2 alternative, and that is 
> that the contents of PIDF-LO are very likely to change, largely with 
> things being added to them. To support these changes in PIDF-LO is 
> relatively easy, because XML is by its very nature extensible. It would 
> be difficult, and I would argue completely undesirable to have to change 
> myriad of layer 2 protocols to support a new attribute that has been 

This is bogus. We have essentially two layer-2 mechanisms that inherit 
the same name space. Registering and defining a new XML tag is no easier 
(or no more difficult) than registering a new DHCP numeric tag. Just 
because it's XML doesn't mean that magically all applications understand it.
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv